Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 43871 - 43880 of 68201 for law.

[PDF] NOTICE
on the basis of his national origin, in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=42255 - 2014-09-15

[PDF] State v. Jody L. Stehle
of Schneider Law Office of Oshkosh. Respondent ATTORNEYS: On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12389 - 2017-09-21

State v. Lewis J. Burmeister
the implied consent law. He argues that his asthma rendered him unable to submit to a breathalyzer test
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=26595 - 2006-09-27

State v. Joseph M. Westcott
components of the standard are mixed questions of law and fact. See State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis.2d 628, 633-34
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12076 - 2005-03-31

State v. Andrew J. Thomas
in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of fact, acting reasonably
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5511 - 2005-03-31

COURT OF APPEALS
that it be raised at that time. Our application of the statute here is consistent with case law. See Arrowhead
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=131908 - 2014-12-17

COURT OF APPEALS
counsel’s actions constitute ineffective assistance is a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Smith
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=89675 - 2012-11-26

State v. Michael G. Kachelski
question of law and fact. Id. at 698. Thus, the trial court’s findings of fact, “the underlying findings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12451 - 2005-03-31

State v. Michael G. Kachelski
question of law and fact. Id. at 698. Thus, the trial court’s findings of fact, “the underlying findings
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12450 - 2005-03-31

Robert Senda v. Labor and Industry Review Commission
of fact, however, is a question of law subject to de novo review. Nottelson v. DILHR, 94 Wis.2d 106, 114
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9109 - 2005-03-31